The Sanctity of Human Life:Harvesting Human Fetal Parts

Dr. Ray Bohlin

The grisly effects of over twenty years of an abortion
industry in this country are becoming easier to document all the
time. In Pennsylvania, the "anatomy specialist" for The
International Institute for the Advancement of Medicine has a task
that would cause many of us to become physically ill. He travels to
local abortion clinics seeking abortion remains. He searches for
fetal parts and tissues that may be of use to medical doctors and
researchers. The Institute is one of a half-dozen fetal tissue
providers in the country. They will charge handling fees of $50 to
$150. These companies distribute over 15,000 specimens to doctors
and researchers annually. Some large medical centers at
universities regularly supply fetal parts to their own doctors and
researchers (The Human Body Shop, by Andrew Kimbrell,
HarperCollins, 1993, pp. 45-66).

The growth and future prospects of the fetal tissue market are
actually quite good. Despite controversy over their effectiveness,
the use of fetal organs for transplants is expected to grow. Prime
targets for recipients are the 1 million Parkinson's disease
victims, 3 million Alzheimer's patients, 6 million diabetics, and
25,000 with Huntington's disease.

The growth of this industry is assured for three reasons. First,
fetal tissue comes from sources the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade
does not consider persons. This gives developing babies virtually
no legal status, and there is no recognized need for regulation of
"non-descript tissue." Second, fetal tissue exhibits tremendous
developmental potential. The use of fetal tissue in transplants is
desirable since these tissues are expected to grow and hopefully
replace adult tissue that has ceased to function or functions
improperly. In the case of Parkinson's disease, fetal brain tissue
is transplanted into the brains of Parkinson's victims in the hope
that the fetal tissue will perform normally and lessen or eliminate
the effects of the disease. Third, fetal tissue is available in an
abundant and continuous supply. With over 1.5 million elective
abortions performed in this country every year, the supply of fetal
tissue is bountiful.

These prospects are complicated further by the fact that the
best tissue for research and transplants is tissue obtained from
fetuses that were still alive when the tissue was obtained. There
is no way to offer protection under current law. France, the United
Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Sweden all have guidelines but no
laws. The U.S. had the Reagan moratorium on fetal tissue research
involving federal funds. But this moratorium has been
misunderstood. All it did was ban the use of federal funds for this
research, not ban the research altogether. This ambiguous situation
provides new pressures on pregnant women seeking abortion. Some are
asked to allow their abortion to be performed by certain procedures
to allow for the live acquisition of fetal parts. So not only is
she asked to end the life that thrives within her, but she is
sometimes asked to sign a permission waiver to allow for a
particular procedure. The lack of legal status will lead to a
commercial industry. President Clinton virtually assured this
prospect when he lifted the ban on using government monies for
research using fetal tissue from elective abortions.

This is no time to lose heart or grow faint in the pro-life
movement. The fetal tissue industry will exert new monetary
pressures to continue abortion on demand. This raises an additional
rationalization that abortion is for the common good. "Just look
what can be done for those suffering from these diseases" they will
say. We must stiffen our resolve and understand what is happening
in our culture.

The Sanctity of Human Life and the Bible

As the pro-life movement encounters increasing pressures from
inside and outside, it becomes more important than ever to have our
thinking grounded in Scripture. We must not only know what we
believe, but also why. Some of these passages are ones you are
familiar with to some degree, but some of them may be new. In
either event, they are important to have for quick reference.

Psalm 139:13-16 says, "For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou
didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for
I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Thy works, and
my soul knows it very well.... Thine eyes have seen my unformed
substance; and in Thy book they were all written, the days that
were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them." David
clearly implies that God is intimately involved in the process of
embryological development inside the womb. David also indicates
that the days of every developing human have been numbered from
before birth.

Psalm 51:5 says, "Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in
sin my mother conceived me." David is not suggesting that he was
born as the result of a sinful relationship. What he is saying is
that from the time he left his mother's womb, even from the moment
he was conceived, he was a sinner. David, therefore, was not some
amorphous blob of tissue at conception, but a spiritual being with
a sin nature. Some may object that I am using a modern day
definition of conception and applying it to a 3,500-year-old text.
However, conception was recognized as the beginning of life. They
understood that the seed of the man needed to be combined with the
seed of the woman and out of that union, a new life was brought
forth. While our technical knowledge may be more precise, the idea
is still the same.

Several individuals in Scripture tell us that they were called
to their respective ministries before birth or while still in the
womb. The Lord tells Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you
in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Isaiah says in
Isaiah 49:1, "The LORD called me from the womb; From the body of my
mother He named me." Paul says in Galatians 1:15, "But when He who
had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through
His grace, was pleased to reveal His son in me." Our days were not
only numbered, but our ministries already planned from the time
before we entered our mother's womb. Each and every life is indeed
valuable in God's eyes.

Even more instructive is the miracle of the Incarnation. In
Matthew 1: 18-20, we are told that Mary was with child by the Holy
Spirit. Jesus entered the world at the point of conception.

We celebrate the incarnation at Christmas, Jesus' birth, but the
actual event took place at conception. This reality is brought home
to us when Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth a short time later.
John the Baptist, at six months gestation in Elizabeth's womb leaps
for joy inside her as he comes into the presence of the Messiah in
Mary's womb. At that point Jesus was not just a blob of cells or
mere tissue. He was the Messiah, the Son of the Most Holy God. It
is also important to note that John the Baptist was filled with the
Holy Spirit and leaped for joy in the womb. Only beings made in
God's image can be filled with the Holy Spirit and that is what
John was.

The Other Side of Life

Euthanasia has taken root in the culture and in our nation.
Doctor-assisted suicide propositions failed in Washington State and
California before passing in Oregon this last election. Dr. C.
Everett Koop fears that for every Baby Doe that is allowed to die
in a hospital due to physical or mental handicaps, there will be
10,000 Grandma Does. There is no question that we are faced with
many difficult decisions concerning the end of life today because
of the immense technological ability to sustain life indefinitely.
While we hold that every life is sacred in the eyes of God, does
there come a time when the merciful and right thing to do is to end
a life?

The Bible actually has something to say to us in this matter.
Apart from the commandment against murder there is additional
information concerning the sanctity of life in 1 and 2 Samuel. For
example, 1 Samuel 31 tells of the death of Saul's sons, including
Jonathan, in battle with the Philistines. When Saul witnesses these
events and sees that defeat is unavoidable, he asks his armor
bearer to kill him because he cannot stand the thought of capture
by the Philistines. The armor bearer refuses out of fear, so Saul
falls on his own sword to kill himself.

We learn, however, from an Amalekite who brings news about Saul
to David in 2 Samuel 1, that like many other events during his
reign, Saul did not get his own suicide quite right. We learn that
this Amalekite had come upon Saul, whose life still lingered in
him, at which point Saul requested that the Amalekite finish the
job, which he did. Upon news of the King's death, David and his
followers tear their clothes and mourn the death of the King of
Israel. David next asks the Amalekite why he did not fear to slay
God's anointed leader (Saul). Without waiting for a reply, David
has the man struck down. It could be argued that David's drastic
response could be because it was the King. But just as clearly,
this man took Saul's life, and capital punishment was administered.
God is a God of life and not death.

The New Testament constantly presents death as the enemy. Jesus
wept at the tomb of Lazarus not just because of the loss of a
friend, but also because of the spoiling effects of death on His
creation. Jesus continually healed the sick, even those who were
close to death, not just to relieve suffering but because death was
the enemy. Jesus' message was clear: we are to seek to preserve
life not find ways to terminate it.

But many in our society face difficult decisions concerning life
and death. When are extra-ordinary measures justified and when
should nature be allowed to take its course? Some would even say
that the merciful thing to do is to take active measures to end a
life that is wracked with incurable suffering. Christian Medical
ethicist, John F. Kilner, presents a threefold imperative for
making decisions in this area. Our decisions should be God-
centered, Reality-bounded, and
Love-impelled. God-centered in that we
have studied what Scripture has to say about life and death. We
have gained an understanding of God's perspective. Reality-
bounded in that we have educated ourselves concerning the
relevant medical technologies and capabilities as well as the
status of the patient. Love-impelled in that we consider
others as more important than ourselves and that we are seeking the
comfort and treatment of the one who is ill and not what will be
easier for us to handle. All too often today, society offers a
caricature of godly love and offers it up as the only criterion to
be considered.

Decisions of Life and Death in the Real World

When asked about issues of death and dying, a book I always
recommend is by Joni Eareckson Tada, When Is It Right to
Die? Joni brings a unique blend of biblical interpretation,
personal experience, and knowledge of modern medicine to the issues
of suffering, mercy, suicide, and euthanasia. One of the more
important points in the book is that there is a real difference
between allowing nature to take its course in a person who is
clearly dying and taking specific measures to end someone's life.
Joni quotes former U.S. Surgeon General and co-author of the book,
Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, C. Everett Koop:

If someone is dying and there is no doubt about that,
and you believe as I do that there is a difference between giving
a person all the life to which he is entitled as opposed to
prolonging the act of dying, then you might come to a time when you
say this person can take certain amounts of fluid by mouth and
we're not going to continue this intravenous solution because he is
on the way out.

This is what death with dignity is supposed to be all about.
There does come a time when a patient is dying and there is nothing
to be done to heal or cure him. The next question then is how long
and with what measures do you prolong the act of dying. As a person
dies, various bodily functions begin to shut down. Some will
completely lose the ability to eliminate fluids from the body. In
these cases, if intravenous fluids are continued, the body will
bloat and become extremely uncomfortable. Medical care becomes
torture. Better to remove the intravenous solution, provide limited
fluid by mouth, and allow the dying process to continue while
making the patient as comfortable as possible.

Withholding fluids in this case is totally different than
withholding fluids from a newborn Down's Syndrome child because the
parents don't want the child. The latter is murder. What is
important here is to realize that every case is different. There is
no set of rules that will be able to govern every possible
situation. That is why any law attempting to legalize doctor-
assisted suicide is dangerous. It is simply impossible to cover all
the bases. The law will be abused.

We have the clear testimony of the Netherlands to back that up.
A 1991 article in the Journal of the American Medical
Association, stated that rules were established governing
euthanasia in the Netherlands by the courts in 1973. However, the
article stated that only 41% of the doctors obey the rules, 27%
admit to having performed involuntary euthanasia (without consent
of the patient), and 59% are willing to do so under various
circumstances. In 1990, 5,941 deaths were the result of involuntary
euthanasia.

But why is euthanasia gaining so much popular support? The
reason is fear. People fear the power of modern medicine. They are
worried that modern technology is out of control and that they may
be left on life-support indefinitely and unnecessarily. People also
fear the loneliness and pain of death. Today there is no reason to
fear the pain. Surprisingly, the U.S. is a bit behind the rest of
Western medicine in the treatment of pain in that there are many
options available to treat pain and nearly eliminate it entirely
for a dying patient. The loneliness is best dealt with in a
hospice. A hospice is designed to take care of the emotional,
mental, spiritual needs as well as the physical aspects of the
terminally ill. In a hospital, a dying patient is often seen as a
failure. A hospice can effectively provide care that is God-
centered, reality-bounded, and love-impelled.

A Call to Action and A Warning

In this discussion I have tried to lay out some of the clear
biblical and medical issues that face us today in the pro-life
movement. Often we can become confused as to what we can do that is
effective in turning the culture around. Certainly using the ballot
box effectively is important. Making use of our representative form
of government by writing letters and calling the appropriate
legislators to let them know our position on a particular issue is
another. But I would like to conclude with a specific encouragement
and a warning.

My encouragement is to become involved in whatever way possible
with a crisis pregnancy center in your area. If there isn't one,
get a group together to find out how to start one. The Christian
Action Council out of Washington, D.C., has set up hundreds of them
around the country. Assisting women in a crisis pregnancy has a
clear biblical parallel with how God treated Hagar when she left
Abraham's household.

You will remember that when Sarah became frustrated with her
inability to provide Abraham with a son to fulfill God's promise,
she brought her servant, Hagar, to Abraham as a substitute. Abraham
consented, of course, and soon found himself in trouble. When Hagar
conceived there was immediate tension. Hagar was jealous because
although she performed the duties of a wife for Abraham, she had
gained none of the privileges. Sarah on the other hand was
resentful because Hagar was successful where she had failed. Sarah
complained to Abraham about Hagar's outward hostility and half-
rightly blamed him for Hagar's mistreatment of her. Abraham gave
Sarah permission to mistreat Hagar, and Hagar ultimately fled into
the desert. This was indeed a crisis pregnancy. Hagar's child in
her womb was the result of an adulterous relationship: she had been
abused and mistreated, and she was now homeless and destitute.

But God met her in her time of need. He provided for her
materially by telling her to return to Abraham and Sarah. He
comforted her emotionally by assuring her that her child was
important to Him by indicating that it was a son and He already had
a name picked out for Him: Ishmael, meaning "God hears." God also
promised that her son would be the father of many nations. Hagar
chose life for herself and for her son. Today, women will choose
the same path if provided with the truth surrounded by love and
compassion.

My warning is to say simply that violence is never justified in
our fight to save lives. First, we are commanded to submit and obey
governmental authorities (Titus 3:1 and Rom. 13:1). Remember that
Moses was banished for 40 years for taking matters into his own
hands in Egypt when he killed an Egyptian soldier who was
mistreating an Israelite worker (Exod. 2:11). Moses had one
solution in mind, but God had another. Israel had every right by
today's standards to rise up in armed rebellion. God, however, had
another plan. Civil disobedience is certainly allowed when God's
laws are violated, but violent protest is nowhere recorded in
Scripture (Exod. 1,12; Daniel 3; 1 Kings 18; Acts 4-5; Rev. 13).
Daniel disobeyed the law of the land but submitted to the lion's
den as did the martyrs of the early church when faced with terribly
brutal and unjust persecution. Jesus rebuked Peter's use of the
sword at His arrest (Matt. 26:52). Jesus submitted to Pilate's
authority. He said, "You would have no power over me if it were not
given to you from above" (John 19:10-11).

Whether dealing with abortion, helping women victimized by the
allure and power of a legal abortion industry, or comforting people
afraid of pain, suffering, and death, our response should be God-
centered, rooted in the sanctity of human life; reality-bounded,
knowledgeable about the situation, and love-impelled, guided by the
desire to extend the love of Christ to all.